Fairness Paycheck Act sponsored by.....

[LordBrownTrout]

You guessed it, Obama and Clinton. "The first would resurrect the discredited idea of "comparable worth." The second would add various sexual orientations to the classifications protected from employment discrimination. The third is a plaintiffs' bar wish list, aimed mostly at overturning cases it lost in the Supreme Court.There are actually two versions of comparable worth legislation, the Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. The former is co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama; the principal sponsor of the latter is Sen. Hillary Clinton (Mr. Obama is a co-sponsor). Both would push companies to set wages based not on supply and demand -- that is the free market -- but on some notion of social utility. The goal is to ensure that jobs performed mostly by men (say, truck drivers) are not paid more than those performed mostly by women (paralegals, perhaps)."


Is this the change we're being offered?


Equal Rights Nonsense

 

[ronpaul2008]

The United Socialist States of America - The USSA

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The United Socialist States of America - The USSA

No kidding. I never thought I'd see the day that we'd have legislation being introduced that would impose limitations to salaries. These two aren't worthy of sitting in a homeowners association council, let alone the highest office in the land. William Bradford tried something similar to this back in the 1650's with the pilgrims and it failed miserably.

 

[Dr Grump]

Maybe if companies paid people what they could afford and what they were worth, then there would be no need for this type of legislation or unions for that matter...

 

[Dr Grump]

These two aren't worthy of sitting in a homeowners association council, let alone the highest office in the land.

The problem is, the Repubs set an all-time low when GW got elected. Now even a gerbil with a speech impediment would look good in the Oval Office.

That aside, in all seriousness, Hillary and Obama's intellectual superiority would leave GW gasping like a fish out of water. Pretty hard to criticise these two after the past 8 years....In Lord Brown Trout, you moniker fits the bill to T! )

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The problem is, the Repubs set an all-time low when GW got elected. Now even a gerbil with a speech impediment would look good in the Oval Office.

That aside, in all seriousness, Hillary and Obama's intellectual superiority would leave GW gasping like a fish out of water. Pretty hard to criticise these two after the past 8 years....In Lord Brown Trout, you moniker fits the bill to T! )

Provide some proof of your claim. Ohh I do not know, perhaps provide us with the IQ's of the 3 so we can see this stark difference you claim. Maybe post the grade point average of the three from College, so again we can see this great divide you talk of.

Neither are intellectually superior to Bush. One is a crook that is just smart enough and has enough connections to never get caught, the other is a racist with absolutely no concept of how Foreign policy should work. Both are absolute morons when it comes to Social Programs.

 

[Dr Grump]

Provide some proof of your claim. Ohh I do not know, perhaps provide us with the IQ's of the 3 so we can see this stark difference you claim. Maybe post the grade point average of the three from College, so again we can see this great divide you talk of.

Neither are intellectually superior to Bush. One is a crook that is just smart enough and has enough connections to never get caught, the other is a racist with absolutely no concept of how Foreign policy should work. Both are absolute morons when it comes to Social Programs.

I don't need to prove anything in that regard. I've seen all three speak. I have seen Obama and Hillary speak off the cuff, as I have Dubya. He is King of the Dumbfucks. I'm surprised he can put two sentences together.

Where is your proof that Hillary or Obama are crooks? Take your time, or are you just mouthing off again.

LOL re foreign policy. You remember before the interview before 2000 where the journo asked Bush the heads of state of six countries and he was flumoxed?? As I said, the moment you right-wing whackjobs voted him in, all bets were off re the intellect of your leader. As I said, anybody will be smarter than him....

A typical American, ethnocentric, ignorant, right-wing hayseed......

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=juOQhTuzDQ0[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't need to prove anything in that regard. I've seen all three speak. I have seen Obama and Hillary speak off the cuff, as I have Dubya. He is King of the Dumbfucks. I'm surprised he can put two sentences together.

Where is your proof that Hillary or Obama are crooks. Take your time.or are you just mouthing off again.

LOL re foreign policy. You remember before the interview before 2000 where the journo asked Bush the heads of state of six countries and he was flumoxed?? As I said, the moment you right-wing whackjobs voted him in, all bets were off re the intellect of your leader. As I said, anybody will be smarter than him....

A typical American, ethnocentric, right-wing hayseed......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=juOQhTuzDQ0

A usual left wing retard from another country. Do tell us how and whom we should run our country.

 

[Dr Grump]

A usual left wing retard from another country. Do tell us how and whom we should run our country.

Actually I'm considered a centrist where I come from. Thing is, in most western countries people would think that due to my views. The problem with you Yanks is your politics are so skewed both ways that even moderates are considered either lefties OR righties...how fucked is that.

As for running other countries, unlike you guys who have never had an influence on other countries' politics, right? Can you say South Vietnam? Chile? Central America circa 1980s? Yadda, yadda, yadda..

As for who should be your president, your whole political system needs an overhaul. It's broken big time IMO...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually I'm considered where I come from. Thing is, in most western countries people would think that due to my views. The problem with you Yanks is your politics are so skewed both ways that even moderates are considered either lefties OR righties...how fucked is that.

As for running other countries, unlike you guys who have never had an influence on other countries' politics, right? Can you say South Vietnam? Chile? Central America circa 1980s? Yadda, yadda, yadda..

As for who should be your president, your whole political system needs an overhaul. It's broken big time IMO...

Sure thing, keep on talking, I am sure your winning converts even as you speak.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe if companies paid people what they could afford and what they were worth, then there would be no need for this type of legislation or unions for that matter...

what business is it of the government to tell any business owner what he should pay a person?

nowhere is the word "fair" in the constitution. the simple fact of the matter is that businesses pay their employees in direct proportion to their worth to the company and their value in the marketplace. in fact most businesses, mine included, have to weigh all aspects of the costs of hiring an employee to the money that employee will make the company.

for example, is the person i'm hiring going to bring in more money than the salary i pay plus all the associated state and federal taxes that are my responsibility as well as insurance sick time holidays not to mention what he might steal from the company etc ad infinitum.

if after all that i can still make a profit on the work an employee does then i'll hire him or bump his salary up. if i hire someone and just break even on the deal, its not a good deal for me is it?

it is not the job of the government to tell me what i have to pay an employee period

 

[Dr Grump]

what business is it of the government to tell any business owner what he should pay a person?

nowhere is the word "fair" in the constitution. the simple fact of the matter is that businesses pay their employees in direct proportion to their worth to the company and their value in the marketplace. in fact most businesses, mine included, have to weigh all aspects of the costs of hiring an employee to the money that employee will make the company.

for example, is the person i'm hiring going to bring in more money than the salary i pay plus all the associated state and federal taxes that are my responsibility as well as insurance sick time holidays not to mention what he might steal from the company etc ad infinitum.

if after all that i can still make a profit on the work an employee does then i'll hire him or bump his salary up. if i hire someone and just break even on the deal, its not a good deal for me is it?

it is not the job of the government to tell me what i have to pay an employee period

Then who regulates the oil barons? I like who you mention how he or she might steal. That is the exception, not the rule. And if it is the rule in the US then I'd guide you back to my post about your system needing repair

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then who regulates the oil barons? I like who you mention how he or she might steal. That is the exception, not the rule. And if it is the rule in the US then I'd guide you back to my post about your system needing repair

oil barons?

wtf are you talking about?

the government does NOT set the wages "oil barons" pay their employees. isn't that what we are talking about, wage regulation and the government telling business owners what "fair" pay is?

and if you think employees don't steal then you are supremely naive. if you added up the costs of inventory that goes missing in all the companies in the world from employee theft, you could wipe out the national debt. it has nothing to do with the government, it has to to with the nature of people.

the answer is simple. if you want to be paid more, then make yourself more valuable to the marketplace. use experience from an entry level job to get a better job. it's up to you to make yourself worth more. it is NOT the government's place to interfere here.

 

[Dr Grump]

oil barons?

wtf are you talking about?

the government does NOT set the wages "oil barons" pay their employees. isn't that what we are talking about, wage regulation and the government telling business owners what "fair" pay is?

and if you think employees don't steal then you are supremely naive. if you added up the costs of inventory that goes missing in all the companies in the world from employee theft, you could wipe out the national debt. it has nothing to do with the government, it has to to with the nature of people.

the answer is simple. if you want to be paid more, then make yourself more valuable to the marketplace. use experience from an entry level job to get a better job. it's up to you to make yourself worth more. it is NOT the government's place to interfere here.

It's a colloquial term for employers who exploit their workers..

Typical employer - believes everybody is out to rip them off. I put you in the category of people who believe ALL Muslims are out to kill them. Are there employees who steal? Absolutely. They are very much the minority, but people like you try to make out they are the mainstream. They are not, by a long shot. BS re the national debt. If employees were that prolific there would be no businesses- they'd be out of money!

Oh, right, make yourself more valuable. So let's say EVERY person makes themselves more valuable. Let's say EVERYBODY does that. Who's gonna clean the buildings, be baggage handlers, sweep the streets, shine the shoes, sort the peas, pick the cotton, wash the windows, work the checkout??? And you call me naive...


Absolutely the govt has to interfere. Big employers can never be trusted to do right by their employees. If they did there would not be unions in the first place. And if employers are so fucking amazing why are there Tyco's and Enrons in this world?? Naive?? ppfffffttt - get your own house in order before spouting superlatives.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a colloquial term for employers who exploit their workers..

Typical employer - believes everybody is out to rip them off. I put you in the category of people who believe ALL Muslims are out to kill them. Are there employees who steal? Absolutely. They are very much the minority, but people like you try to make out they are the mainstream. They are not, by a long shot. BS re the national debt. If employees were that prolific there would be no businesses- they'd be out of money!

Oh, right, make yourself more valuable. So let's say EVERY person makes themselves more valuable. Let's say EVERYBODY does that. Who's gonna clean the buildings, be baggage handlers, sweep the streets, shine the shoes, sort the peas, pick the cotton, wash the windows, work the checkout??? And you call me naive...


Absolutely the govt has to interfere. Big employers can never be trusted to do right by their employees. If they did there would not be unions in the first place. And if employees are so fucking amazing why are there Tyco's and Enrons in this world?? Naive?? ppfffffttt - get your own house in order before spouting superlatives.....

you don't seem to realize that in the US the majority of people are employed by companies of less than 1000. you would want to see a huge number of these people out of work so you can stick it to so called big business?

if an employer is not "doing right " by you LEAVE. find someone who will pay you what you think you deserve and work there.

the fact is that people who bag groceries are just not that valuable to the marketplace. the idea of wages and jobs in a free market is that it resembles a ladder not a bed. start on one rung and move up. if you want to stay in a dead end job it's your choice and the government should not tell me i have to pay you more than your job is worth to my bottom line. hell i'll get rid of my grocery baggers and offer my customers a slight discount to bag their own and i'll make more money than if i kept them on at a govrnment enforced wage that is too high for my bottom line. so by doing things your way with government control all my grocery baggers lost their jobs and i made more money

what's next the government tells me i have to hire them back and even hire more employees so it "fair" then i'm out of business and ALL my employees suffer. btw i am not in the grocery business but the example holds for all businesses

i put you in the category of all people who are too god damn lazy to make their own way and want to rest of the hard working and heaven forbid successful people to subsidize your life. you are simply jealous of those who have success. fyi i don't believe that everybody wants to rip me off but i am smart enough to know that some of them do. i am also smart enough to know that i won't always know who these people are so i take measures to reduce my risk across the board.

lets use your opinion on employee theft in another scenario.

you're a doctor and you know that a very small percentage of people have AIDS so why bother to wear gloves or dispose of needles properly? the vast majority of people are just fine right??


http://www.corporatecombat.com/statistics.html

http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/11/01/focus1.html

as you can see even a 1 % employee theft rate can cost billions would you call that insignificant?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's a colloquial term for employers who exploit their workers..

Typical employer - believes everybody is out to rip them off. I put you in the category of people who believe ALL Muslims are out to kill them. Are there employees who steal? Absolutely. They are very much the minority, but people like you try to make out they are the mainstream. They are not, by a long shot. BS re the national debt. If employees were that prolific there would be no businesses- they'd be out of money!

Oh, right, make yourself more valuable. So let's say EVERY person makes themselves more valuable. Let's say EVERYBODY does that. Who's gonna clean the buildings, be baggage handlers, sweep the streets, shine the shoes, sort the peas, pick the cotton, wash the windows, work the checkout??? And you call me naive...


Absolutely the govt has to interfere. Big employers can never be trusted to do right by their employees. If they did there would not be unions in the first place. And if employees are so fucking amazing why are there Tyco's and Enrons in this world?? Naive?? ppfffffttt - get your own house in order before spouting superlatives.....

No, sir. The employer has to watch out for costs and wastes. Govt interference in economics and market doesn't work. However, I am with you on the punishment of the Lay's and the Tyco CEO's, forgot his name, but they deserve their place in prison for fleecing billions out of hard working employees.

 

[CharlestonChad]

what business is it of the government to tell any business owner what he should pay a person?

nowhere is the word "fair" in the constitution. the simple fact of the matter is that businesses pay their employees in direct proportion to their worth to the company and their value in the marketplace. in fact most businesses, mine included, have to weigh all aspects of the costs of hiring an employee to the money that employee will make the company.

for example, is the person i'm hiring going to bring in more money than the salary i pay plus all the associated state and federal taxes that are my responsibility as well as insurance sick time holidays not to mention what he might steal from the company etc ad infinitum.

if after all that i can still make a profit on the work an employee does then i'll hire him or bump his salary up. if i hire someone and just break even on the deal, its not a good deal for me is it?

it is not the job of the government to tell me what i have to pay an employee period

So you are saying that you wouldn't have a problem with an equally valuable gay employee making half of what the straight employee makes? You don't think there's something wrong when the WSJ author said this" The second bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, passed the House of Representatives last fall. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." In short, private-sector employers who have religious or other objections to homosexuality would be told their moral views lack legitimacy." as something being a bad thing?

 

[Shogun]

well, I guess the government can always take your money via taxes and create market competition that pays Americans an accepted living standard. it's not as if this nation was created for the sake of mega conglomerates, corporate entities and rich people. find the words free-market capitolism in the Constitution, fellas. Sure, feel free to pay at a minimum wage while a government business normalizes the American standard of living and forces you to compete or drop out of the race..

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you are saying that you wouldn't have a problem with an equally valuable gay employee making half of what the straight employee makes? You don't think there's something wrong when the WSJ author said this" The second bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, passed the House of Representatives last fall. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." In short, private-sector employers who have religious or other objections to homosexuality would be told their moral views lack legitimacy." as something being a bad thing?

this argument is not about equal pay for equal work. it is about the government deciding what a "fair" wage is for any particular job.

and again if i don't want to hire someone to work for me that i don't like, i shouldn't be forced to because the government says i have to. i don't have a problem with any business owner not hiring anyone for any reason. it is not my place and it is certainly not the government's place to force a business person to hire anyone they don't want working for them in order to fulfill some government social mandate.

do you really care if a local business owner doesn't hire gay people, or _____ (fill in the adjective of your choice) people. i don't. it is none of my business and it should be none of yours.

now that said, if a business owner hires a (fill in the blank) person, that person should be paid in direct proportion to their worth to the company. because the owner hired them, he obviously doesn't care what race, creed or orientation they are.

but the bottom line is that if you feel you are being treated unfairly at your job, you should find another job or better yet start a business and create more jobs then you can be the truly fair and magnanimous boss you always wanted. but we'll see if when the realities and risks of running a business and dealing with employees and the state and federal government will change your mind. i'm betting you'd be agreeing with me in less than 6 months

 

[CharlestonChad]

this argument is not about equal pay for equal work. it is about the government deciding what a "fair" wage is for any particular job.

Fair as in equal to others at the same job, or fair as in what they think the worker should earn for their work?

and again if i don't want to hire someone to work for me that i don't like, i shouldn't be forced to because the government says i have to. i don't have a problem with any business owner not hiring anyone for any reason. it is not my place and it is certainly not the government's place to force a business person to hire anyone they don't want working for them in order to fulfill some government social mandate.

do you really care if a local business owner doesn't hire gay people, or _____ (fill in the adjective of your choice) people. i don't. it is none of my business and it should be none of yours.

It most certainly is OUR business. The work force greatly dictates our standard of living in America. If we allow business to discriminate, then the pool of quality employees is smaller which will hurt everyone financially in the long run.

now that said, if a business owner hires a (fill in the blank) person, that person should be paid in direct proportion to their worth to the company. because the owner hired them, he obviously doesn't care what race, creed or orientation they are.

but the bottom line is that if you feel you are being treated unfairly at your job, you should find another job or better yet start a business and create more jobs then you can be the truly fair and magnanimous boss you always wanted. but we'll see if when the realities and risks of running a business and dealing with employees and the state and federal government will change your mind. i'm betting you'd be agreeing with me in less than 6 months

Not everyone is mentally, physically, or financially capable of starting their own company. The vast majority of Americans are subject to a boss, and they will be their whole lives regardless of how much they want to start their own company